MTG Salvation

Yeah, the problem here comes from the assumption. If

1. we define omniscience as having justified, true belief embedded within it, and
2. we have no pragmatic explanation for the being's omniscience besides our assumption, and corresponding suspension of belief to the contrary, that the being is omniscient,

THEN the omniscience evaporates, because we cannot justify it. The suspension of belief cannot hold. In this example, no matter how much we try to escape this by making it hypothetical, the being's omniscience comes from our assumption that it is omniscient. Real-life omniscience, if it existed, would have justified true belief embedded within it, but this justified true belief of each well-formed proposition would be the set of characteristics that lead us to call the being omniscient, not the other way around. Logic simply does not have the tools to let us work backwards like this.

Next: 4WB

But, to answer your question, if your opponent were, for instance, to cast Emerge Unscathed on the cobra, you'd still kill it. The second Javelineers trigger resolves first; then Emerge resolves with nothing to target, fizzling; then the first Javelineers trigger resolves with nothing to target, fizzling.

Quote from Rywads

This seems like such a common theme here in the EDH threads. I honestly think those of us who are only competitive-minded have more actual "fun." Even when we're losing, we're still trying to learn how to win next time. With EDH "fun," everyone is always scooping or talking about socially banning certain cards. Or - even worse - the guy who "doesn't play against control." You hear about the strangest people around here. Makes me think that EDH really isn't as fun as some would like to think it is. Even around civilized players, I imagine there are too many minor squabbles.

You can be competitively-minded and still a casual player.

I think the entire problem of the 'casual v. competitive' argument lies here: a lexical misunderstanding. We use the words as if they're diametrically opposed. 'Competitive' and 'casual' aren't opposite ends of the same spectrum, but instead are points on different axes. A competitive player wants to win, and a casual player wants to have fun. These are obviously not mutually exclusive, because winning is fun. 'Competitive' and 'casual' players alike may be thinking about how to win next game even if they're losing, and the same goes for not doing that and whining instead. The key is to be a good loser if you're losing and a good winner if you're winning.

As for the so-called spirit of EDH, insofar as 'spirit' as a being exists at all, I'd argue that the 'spirit of EDH' that the game started out with is more 'real' than this one, especially since, for example, the game hasn't even been called EDH for the past year. To avoid a metaphysical debate, we can just define the spirit of EDH as the values and goals in playing EDH of the first few people who played it. People started playing EDH as a way of getting their minds off of high-tension Legacy or otherwise-competitively-formatted Magic. They chose legendary dragons as the main characters for their decks, adding a fanciful role-playing element to the gaming experience. Games were longer and more epic-feeling, giving each player the opportunities to play larger and more multicolored spells. Since the format's increase in popularity following the release of the Commander products, a more calculating force has seeped in. Which is fine for people who want to play that way, but not for people who see the format as it's defined on the front page of mtgcommander.net:

Commander is the modern name for EDH, a Magic:The Gathering variant format which emphasises social interactions, interesting games, and creative deckbuilding. It can be played 1-on-1 but is usually multiplayer.

Man, I would love for them to make separate cards for Tibor and Lumia.

Quote from EighNullSects

Hi folks. One very vocal member of my local playgroup is determined to ban Terastodon. His contends that in many multiplayer games it gets ramped out quickly then reanimated again and again. My argument against is that there are many other creatures that are better, but not banned. He makes a couple good points, it is an ETB trigger, not dependent on lasting turns like Consecrated Sphinx. Iona does not affect the existing board. Jin-Gitaxias has to last at least one phase to matter.

He refuses to play the card anymore, and tried to force all of us to stop as well. I told him he cannot make up the rules for all of us to follow, and the best we could do for him is put it up to a vote prior to our next tournament (non sanctioned). He agreed, then decided his best method of getting the rule change through would be to build Momir Vig, Simic Visionary and abuse Terastodon replay.


One last note, is this really any better/different than Stax or land D?

thanks I need some argument points against a very stubborn bullheaded player!

I've always thought Terastodon was one of the best-balanced removal spells they've printed recently. Like others have said, I almost never hit lands unless they're problematic. If someone uses it in a ****ty way, blame the playstyle, not the card.

On another hand, if its use is widespread, I can understand if he's just tired of seeing it.

I just want to cement what others have said about "splashy and fun" spells. Cards like Omniscience or Enter the Infinite are dumb. We want to use our brains to figure out janky, 4-card combos to do the things those cards do, not look online and netdeck ways to generate infinite mana and then play those big dumb things.

Also, I really want them to make a pinger general. Perhaps:

Poopfart, Lord of Tims 1UWR
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard
Vigilance
T: Untap all creatures you control that have activated abilities with T: in their costs.
3/4

or

Evilfart, Lord of Tims 1UBR
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard
Creatures you control that have activated abilities with {T} in their costs have deathtouch.
Whenever a creature you control with an activated ability with {T} in its cost deals damage to an opponent, that player loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
2/2

These would make creatures like Gelectrode, Rootwater Hunter, Cunning Sparkmage, Cinder Pyromancer, Prodigal Pyromancer, Prodigal Sorcerer, Razorfin Hunter, and Zuran Spellcaster viable and fun.

The question is kind of phrased weirdly -- if it's a must have, then it should go in 100% of decks. The 'no' answer, therefore, would seem to refer to the 99% - 0% range. There's no need for a 'depends on the deck' answer since it covers territory already covered by the 'no'.

Obviously, I don't think it should go in every deck.

Quote from rogue"d

link to that would be appreaciated. oh i forgot to mention early harvest.

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=301897

Here it is. My own list takes out some of the non-budget stuff and un-Wortish ways to win, such as Avenger of Zendikar, Spawnsire of Ulamog, Prime Time, etc. It still burns to a crisp consistently.

---

The commander metagame
A weighted top 200
For deck construction!
What singles to get from the latest sets?
What cards are HOT this month?
What are the most popular commanders?
What set should I buy a box from?
Out of curiosity
Top user contributors